445187EJT0010.1177/1354066112445187HallEuropean Journal of International Relations EJIR Article European Journal of International Relations The satiric vision of politics: 0(0) 1 –20 © The Author(s) 2012 Ethics, interests and disorders Reprints and permissions: sagepub. co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1354066112445187 ejt.sagepub.com Ian Hall Australian National University, Australia Abstract In The Tragic Vision of Politics (Lebow, 2003), Richard Ned Lebow argues that a ‘tragic understanding of the political’ provides the best ontological and epistemological foundations for a theory of International Relations. This article challenges that claim. It argues that other literary modes of representing social life can offer equally strong bases for international theories. To that end, it examines the ‘satirical vision of politics’ with reference to satirists as diverse as Aristophanes and Erasmus. It concludes that satire can provide just as good a form of political education as tragedy and just as robust a foundation for the kind of theory Lebow prefers. Keywords International Relations theory, political realism, satire, tragedy wisdom requires a sense of proportion, which is only another word for a sense of humour. (Georg Schwarzenberger, 1948: 313). Introduction In The Tragic Vision of Politics (Lebow, 2003), Richard Ned Lebow calls attention to what we might call — after Hayden White — the ‘deep structure’ of the narratives that underpin International Relations (IR) theory (White, 1975: ix). Lebow’s concern is to examine the structures of the various stories that inform political realism, in particular. Realism, he argues, is a powerful theory in analytical terms, but presently flawed by its apparent incapacity to ‘adjudicate between competing claims of ethics and security’ (2003: 15). Lebow argues that this problem can be resolved if realists stopped attempting Corresponding author: Ian Hall, Department of International Relations, College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University, Hedley Bull Centre, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Email: [email protected] Downloaded from ejt.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 10, 2016 2 European Journal of International Relations 0(0) to render their theories into sets of empirically falsifiable propositions and instead re- grounded their thinking in a ‘tragic vision’ of the political. Tragedy, he claims, provides us with a representation of politics that best conveys the realities of political life, espe- cially in international relations. As such, the ‘tragic vision of politics’ provides both a superior form of moral and political education and a proper basis on which to build a better theory of international relations that those we already have (Lebow, 2003: 364). Lebow is not alone in advancing these arguments for a ‘tragic vision’ nor is he the only international theorist to take literature seriously as a mode of theorizing.1 In the 1940s and 1950s, many classical realists utilized the concept of tragedy in their work (Butterfield, 1950; Morgenthau, 1946; Niebuhr, 1938; Smith, 1995; Spirtas, 1996; Thompson, 1960; Thompson and Myers, 1977). A thin notion of tragedy may be located too in later realist texts (Bacevich, 2008; Mearsheimer, 2002), and a more substantive one can be found in contemporary normative theory in IR that is sympathetic to classical realism (Beardsworth, 2008; Brown, 2007; Mayall, 2003; Rengger, 2005). In the main, however, the ‘tragic vision of politics’ has been subjected to the most extensive examina- tion in political theory and in classics (Carter, 2007; Croally, 1994; Euben, 1986, 1990, 1997, 2007; Gregory, 1991). In its strongest form, the ‘tragic vision’ implies that political life, and indeed human existence itself, is in some essential way intrinsically tragic. Life is tragic, according to the vision, either because human beings are flawed, and thus unable always to do the right thing by ourselves and others, or because we are doomed to exist in a predicament in which it is impossible always to do good. Life is tragic, in other words, because we are predisposed in some way to fail to achieve our ideals, no matter how good our intentions might be.2 In its weaker form, the ‘tragic vision’ merely argues that tragedy, as a form of art, best represents the nature of political life (which may or may not be intrinsically tragic), especially for the purposes of political education. To use Hans J. Morgenthau’s terms, on the first understanding, tragedy is a ‘quality of existence’; whereas on the second, it is merely a ‘creation of art’ designed to convey a moral or lesson (quoted in Lebow, 2003: 308). Lebow’s case for a tragic vision is a powerful one, blending — as we shall see — both understandings of the ‘tragic vision’, but it raises a number of important questions for international theorists. Most obviously, it asks whether a realism grounded in trag- edy is indeed the best kind of international theory — a question that has already been addressed in a series of responses to Lebow’s book (Brown, 2007; Rengger, 2005; Williams, 2005). Less obviously, it also asks two further questions. The first is whether other forms of fictional representation and other literary genres — comedy, for exam- ple, romance, or satire — also have lessons which political and international theorists might learn.3 What, moreover, might these lessons be? Is it the case, for example, that while tragedy teaches realist lessons, romance teaches liberal or radical ones? Or might realist concepts be equally well conveyed by comedy? Secondly — and more broadly — Lebow’s ‘tragic vision’ poses one further problem, namely, the proper relationship between scholarly social-scientific theory and literary fiction. While Lebow argues that tragedy is a good teacher of realism, he does not spell out the implications of this argu- ment for scholars themselves. Ought we, as academic students of IR, write tragedies? And in what form — as plays or novels or television programmes? Downloaded from ejt.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 10, 2016 Hall 3 None of the existing responses to Lebow’s book address these questions, so this arti- cle aims to take up that challenge. It argues that tragedy is not the only literary genre capable of providing a valuable political education and grounding the best kind of inter- national theory. It suggests instead that others — notably satire — are at least as good, if not better. Satire is an arguably less obtuse and more palatable mode of conveying ideas for moralists with political intentions and, partly for that reason, political satire is far more common in Western and (arguably) non-Western literature than overtly political tragedies. But while satire is a potent mode of political education, this article also argues that it is not one in which academic students of IR can easily engage. While satirical representations of international relations could be studied by scholars, it is less clear that they could or ought to be written by theorists. To use Whitley’s (2000) phrase, the ‘intel- lectual and social organization’ of IR militates against the writing of literature rather than academic articles or monographs. For this reason, this article concludes, any attempt to ground an international theory in a literary genre faces greater obstacles than Lebow allows. What follows is in five parts. The first part looks more closely at Lebow’s attempt to sketch out the tragic vision and its relationship to realism. The second outlines what satire is and what it can do in a political context. The third part illustrates the uses of satire as a means of analysing international relations and advancing an international the- ory. The fourth part examines how satire works as a mode of political education — specifically, how it appeals to an audience to encourage their disapprobation of the behaviours being satirized and their approbation of the satirist’s moral rules. The fifth part explores the possibility of a ‘satiric vision of politics’ comparable to Lebow’s tragic vision — an international theory grounded in a satiric account of political life. In the conclusion, I argue that satire may offer a superior form of political education to tragedy, but that recognizing this point places international theorists in a difficult posi- tion. To utilize satire and participate in political education through satirizing political practice may place theorists beyond the bounds of accepted conventions for scholarship, but to not engage with satire leaves them as mere spectators to both international rela- tions and fictional representations of international relations. Tragedy and the tragic vision For Lebow, tragedy offers the best means to gain a fuller understanding of ‘power and influence, the relationships between interests and justice, agency and structure, domes- tic and international politics, and the importance of community for domestic and inter- national order’ (2003: 40). To do this, international theorists must accept the tragic nature of the ‘human condition’ and limit their analytical and political ambitions (Lebow, 2005: 329). ‘Greek tragedy’, Lebow argues: was based on the empirical observation that there is no relationship between justice and suffering. It advanced a counterintuitive thesis: that efforts to limit suffering through the accumulation of knowledge or power might invite more suffering. Tragedy confronts us with our frailties and limits, and the disastrous consequences of trying to exceed them. [Sophocles’] Antigone explores the limits of power, and [his] Oedipus Tyrannus those of reason. All tragedies Downloaded from ejt.sagepub.com at The University of Edinburgh on June 10, 2016 4 European Journal of International Relations 0(0) remind us of our mortality and how it differentiates us from the gods. … Tragedy encourages us to develop and use our analytical faculties, but to be equally attentive to our imagination and feelings, to balance inference with prophecy and to recognize that the world is full of contradictions that we cannot resolve. (2003: 20) The tragic vision, in other words, in more than just a vision or a mere creation of art: it is an ontology, epistemology and moral compass all in one.